BI 420156 RO
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: BI 420156 RO

                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BA 520344 S

      On September 9, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued August 5, 1987. The order concerned  housing
accommodations  known as Apt 6J located at 1795  Riverside  Ave.,
New  York,  N.Y.  The Administrator ordered a rent reduction  for
failure to maintain required services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this

      The  tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Services on November 20, 1986 wherein
she   alleged  that  the  landlord  was  refusing  to  paint  her
apartment.   She also stated that she had made frequent  requests
for  painting to be done.  The tenant claimed that the  apartment
was last painted in 1966.

      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
February 23, 1987 and stated that the apartment had been  painted
in  December,  1986.  The owner also stated that the  tenant  had
refused  access to the apartment for painting prior to  December,

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
subject apartment.  The inspection was conducted on June 29, 1987
and  revealed  that  the living room ceiling was  water  damaged,
cracked,  discolored  and peeling and that  the  kitchen  ceiling
required painting.

      The  Administrator issued an order on August  5,  1987  and
ordered  a  rent  reduction of $4.00 per month plus  10%  of  the
maximum  legal  rent.   On  September 1, 1987  the  Administrator
issued  an amended order wherein the amount of the rent reduction
was  changed to be 10% of the maximum legal rent only.  The  rent
reduction was ordered to be effective August 5, 1987.

     On appeal the owner states that the apartment was painted in
1985,  prior  to which the tenant refused to allow  access.   The
owner  also states that the tenant never informed it of the  leak
and that the complaint never mentioned a leak or water damage  to
the  apartment.   The petitioner states that the  roof  has  been
repaired  and  an appointment has been made with  the  tenant  to
paint and plaster.  Annexed to the petition is a paid bill from a
painting  contractor which is offered to show that the  apartment
was  painted in February, 1986.  The Commissioner notes, however,
that  this  bill does not state the address of the building  that
the  contractor  was working on.  A copy of the cancelled  check,
made  out to the contractor and dated February 26, 1986, is  also
attached.  The tenant did not file a response.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be

      The Commissioner finds that the inspector's report provided
ample  basis  for  the  Administrator to have  ordered  the  rent
reduction.   The inspector clearly reported that the kitchen  and
bedroom  ceilings  were  discolored and required  painting.   The
living  room  ceiling was also found to have been discolored,  as
well as damaged by the water leak.  While the owner is correct in
stating that the tenant did not complain about the leak, in order
to  obtain  rent restoration the owner must show that the  living
room ceiling has been painted.

      The  owner  has totally failed to substantiate it's  claims
regrading the tenant's refusal to allow access.  The Commissioner
notes that, in the answer to the complaint, the owner stated that
it  had  painted the apartment in December, 1986 but  now  claims
that  the apartment was painted in 1985 and supplies a paid  bill
and  cancelled  check dated February, 1986.  It is  well  settled
that  the scope of review in an administrative appeal is  limited
to  facts  or  evidence presented before the Rent  Administrator.
Since  the  owner did not submit the paid bill or  check  in  the
proceeding  below,  it is now barred from  doing  so  before  the
Commissioner.   Similarly, the Commissioner cannot  consider  the
owner's  statement that it painted the apartment  in  1985,  when
this statement is at variance with that made by the owner in  the
answer  to the complaint.  The Administrator's order was  correct
and  is,  therefore,  affirmed.  The  owner  may  file  for  rent
restoration when services have been fully restored.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City it is

      ORDERED,  that  this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same
hereby is, affirmed.


                                   JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                   Acting Deputy Commissioner

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name